By SCOTT GUTIERREZ, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Updated 10:00 pm, Tuesday, November 17, 2009

An ordinance that would mean tougher enforcement on business owners or landlords who ignore or allow frequent crime on their property was unanimously approved Tuesday by the Seattle City Council's public safety committee.

Councilman Tim Burgess sponsored the legislation, which he says would scrap the existing law and provide better tools for police to clean up businesses or dwellings that draw too much crime, drug dealing or other chronic nuisances, and that make neighbors feel unsafe.

"There will be some remedies coming soon," Burgess said after the three-member panel voted to approve the ordinance.

The legislation now heads for a vote before the full City Council, possibly Nov. 30. Burgess said he thinks there will be nearly unanimous support.

The ordinance would define "chronic nuisance properties" as places where crimes or drug dealing or other nuisance activities occur at least three times within 60 days, or seven times in a year. Offenses such as prostitution, weapon violations, assaults or gang-related activity would be included in the definition.

The police chief would be given authority to declare a property a chronic nuisance. The owner would be notified in writing and given seven days to respond. The property owner would then have 30 days to work with the police on a plan for clearing out the nuisance activity, or face penalties of up to $500 per day for not complying.

If owners are uncooperative, the case could be referred to the the City Attorney's office, which could file a lawsuit and seek penalties of up to $25,000, or whatever remedies a judge deems appropriate. If the property is a licensed business, such as a motel or bar, the city could seek to revoke or suspend the owner's license.

The current law is geared more toward problem nightclubs and requires proving a nexus between the business and the criminal activity. Seattle police Capt. Mike Washburn, the North Precinct commander, told councilmembers Thursday the law is cumbersome because police have to prove that the neighborhood was impacted before taking legal action. That means taking statements from several neighbors and asking them to publicly testify, often several times during a lengthy process, which intimidates some who fear reprisals.

Cases are rare. He's only been involved with two, both more than five years ago, he said.

"It really feels like we begin to victimize them again," Washburn said. "It takes a tremendous amount of time. Again, it's drawing in people who aren't compensated for their time."

Crime-ridden motels on Aurora Avenue North are under the North Precinct's watch. Most owners want to cooperate with police on solving the problem and attend city-sponsored training sessions, he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the ordinance, arguing that it curtails due process rights and could disproportionately affect low-income tenants or victims of domestic violence. Since the law also targets offenses such as assault or fighting, women or children who survive abuse might be unfairly screened by landlords. Also, landlords might encourage victims not to call police to avoid the nuisance label, the ACLU wrote in a letter to the City Council.

Shankar Narayan, the ACLU's legislative director, said the ordinance looks more like a "sledgehammer when a scalpel might do."

In addition, there is concern that elderly tenants who live with a drug-dealing grandson might be unfairly punished for behavior they have no control over or knowledge about.

Burgess said he's met with the ACLU and reviewed its concerns, but doesn't agree. Washburn said that in many cases, the law would allow police to help people who don't know what to do.

"Our goal is behavior modification. The best folks to work with are just kind of overwhelmed and they just don't know what to do," he said.

For innocent tenants who might get caught in the middle, Councilman Nick Licata added an amendment that provides $3,300 in relocation assistance for tenants who could be displaced in extreme situations where legal action against the owner of an apartment building or low-rent motel causes the business to shut down.